On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 03:44:56PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 16:26 -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:51:04PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > What's better to do in the case of having a 'ghost' package in the
> > database - it's not really 'installed' in the sense of the files
being
> > there on the disk, but it's in the database - is 'rpm -e --justdb
> > --noscripts' .
>
> If there are still files which belong to foobar-1.0 and not foobar-1.1
> (/usr/share/doc/foobar-1.0/ is the most obvious example but this is
> not the only possibility) then they will be left on your system and
> now not claimed by any package. Cleaning that up "by hand" is a long
Indeed. That's why I said this is better *in the case of a 'ghost'
package*, where the files have actually gone but the package entry
remains in the DB.
Yeah, but situations when a resulting mess is _so kind_ for you that
only rpmdb is affected and a system is clean otherwise are so rare
that hardly worth to mention.
Michal